HIS Radeon HD 5670 IceQ 512 MB

[WarEagleAU]

Awesome review and an awesome card. I like how it does crossfire through the pci express connectors. Is this something new or has it been out for a minute now?

 

[mechtech]

100 bucks isnt too bad, considering a 4670 is about 105 bucks here in canada due to the short supply.

It is bad considering when I can find a 4850 in sotck, they are about 130 $cnd

 

[saltyf]

1GB or 512MB tested

First page of the review says "Memory Size: 1024 MB" everywhere else it is refered to as a 512MB card. Seems like a simple typo, but the reason I'm asking is the idle power consumption figure seems wrong for a 512MB card and is around what I'd expect from a 1GB version.

Other 4 reviews I've read were testing 512MB version and idle power consumption was on par or slightly lower than of HD 4670, and 1-5W higher than of 512MB GDDR5 GT240 cards.
So I'm guessing there must be a mistake somewhere.

I'm looking for a card to put into an HTPC that runs 24/7 and has a smallish case with inadequate ventilation. I had a HIS IceQ HD 4670 in it before, but was not satisfied with idle power consumption and temperature, hence was waiting for HD 5670 to come out. Looks like GT240 might be a better card for what I need, especially with more video codecs supporting CUDA nowadays.

 

[W1zzard]

it is a typo .. the correct memory size is 512 MB. did other reviewers test a card from his ? did they measure gpu power only ?

 

[saltyf]

it is a typo .. the correct memory size is 512 MB. did other reviewers test a card from his ? did they measure gpu power only ?

Others had "reference" cards from ATI. Tom's Hardware's approach is probably the closest, gpu power only. Others had total system power, but a lot of cards to compare to. One review tested a crossfire setup 1 vs. 2 cards total power.

 

[suraswami]

Very good review.

Now I am more confused to get the NV240 card or wait for this to come down in price.

 

[W1zzard]

could be that his changed something in their reference design then

 

[saltyf]

could be that his changed something in their reference design then

And if that is true, that would be the most disappointing thing of all.

 

[MadMan007]

W1zzard - is the line that says '9800GT results are higher than they should be' on the results summary page a copy&paste from previous articles, and if so does it still belong? Looking back through the individual tests this card does occasionally best the 9800GT but more often is a little bit behind so I wonder if that sentence is still accurate.

 

[Polarman]

Not that shabby for a low end card. Pretty good card for those casual gamers.

 

[[H]@RD5TUFF]

Great review, but I would like to have seen a review of a card from a better manufacturer.

 

[W1zzard]

W1zzard - is the line that says '9800GT results are higher than they should be' on the results summary page a copy&paste from previous articles, and if so does it still belong? Looking back through the individual tests this card does occasionally best the 9800GT but more often is a little bit behind so I wonder if that sentence is still accurate.

and fixed that too

 

[a_ump]

there really anything wrong with MSI? i mean i've bought 2 8800GT's from XFX and they both failed on me but i don't shun them. I find nothing wrong with MSI personally.

 

[angelkiller]

Awesome review and an awesome card. I like how it does crossfire through the pci express connectors. Is this something new or has it been out for a minute now?

CF through the PCI-E bus has been around for several generations. Most low end cards had this, which is why you didn't know.

I'm not very impressed. I like that it can bitstream audio and power is where it should be. But I really was expecting more performance. Especially for $100. I would want this thing to outperform a 4850 or at the least be equal to it. This card needs to sell for $75 or get a 20% performance boost imo. For $130, you can pick up a 5750, which costs 30% more but gives 50% more performance....

 

[Jstn7477]

A performance discrepancy that I noticed in one of the charts on the BattleForge test:

 

[Mussels]

A performance discrepancy that I noticed in one of the charts on the BattleForge test:

http://img.techpowerup.org/100115/battleforge_2560_1600.gif

looks like 9600 and 9800 got swapped. good catch.

 

[W1zzard]

fixed the 9800 gt in battleforge 2560

 

[saltyf]

I'm not very impressed. I like that it can bitstream audio and power is where it should be. But I really was expecting more performance. Especially for $100. I would want this thing to outperform a 4850 or at the least be equal to it. This card needs to sell for $75 or get a 20% performance boost imo. For $130, you can pick up a 5750, which costs 30% more but gives 50% more performance....

Agree. A "green" version of 5750 might be even more interesting.

 

[swaaye]

The card sure looks a lot like my HIS 4670. Even the MOSFETs are in similar places.

Performance disappoints though considering it has 2x the memory bandwidth, more shaders, higher clocks and a design that ought to be superior overall.

 

[DaC]

The card sure looks a lot like my HIS 4670. Even the MOSFETs are in similar places.

Performance disappoints though considering it has 2x the memory bandwidth, more shaders, higher clocks and a design that ought to be superior overall.

+1 as I already said before.

I think in the end beside the 5850 / 5750 the big one on this series will be 5570....

 

[HalfAHertz]

I think the reason here is that because they have tothing to compete against. This card was positioned against the Gt240(Gt9600) and it beats it soundly. The idea was never to even be in the gt9800/hd4830's price range. I think what we need here is a bit more innovation from both sides...

I really hope the 5570 will be with 200 shaders and not some anemic igp half-breed with just 80 shaders like the prev generation.

 

[andy o]

W1zzard, hope you're still around. I just wanted to say that the high power draw is because this HIS card idles at 600 MHz/900 MHz memory and not at 157/300 like it should. (Sorry to link to a competitor's reviews, but in any case they didn't notice that either.) The graphics show mem clocks at half what they are, but CCC shows them correctly.

A couple of guys at avsforum noted this here and here first. There's also this Newegg review in which the manufacturer seems to imply that it's by design.

 

[Yukikaze]

I think the reason here is that because they have tothing to compete against. This card was positioned against the Gt240(Gt9600) and it beats it soundly. The idea was never to even be in the gt9800/hd4830's price range. I think what we need here is a bit more innovation from both sides...

I really hope the 5570 will be with 200 shaders and not some anemic igp half-breed with just 80 shaders like the prev generation.

The HD5570 has 400 shaders. Just like the HD5670. It just uses GDDR3 for its memory.